Is Private Funding Of Election Offices Legal Or Constitutional?

[Ingomike]

Before the 2020 election I had never heard of private money going to public elections offices. Then came the “Zuckerbucks“ as they came to be called. Book of faces owner Zuckerberg laundered $450 million through non-profits who distributed the money mostly to democrat areas of swing states, this money was used to get out the votes in democrat areas.

Getting out the vote of ANYONE is not the job of election offices.

Can you imagine what would be said if republican supporters were giving cash to republican areas and Marion county got none?

Is this not a violation of equal protection for government run elections to spend more per capita in some areas than others, no matter the source of the money?

Zuckerbucks minus Zuckerberg: States, counties clash over new sources of private election funding

Idaho has already expanded its Zuckerbucks ban to include prohibiting state employees and officials from accepting private funds to administer elections.

justthenews.com

 

[1nderbeard]

Slimy, but I think legal. Also one of the reasons we're doomed.

 

[Ingomike]

Slimy, but I think legal. Also one of the reasons we're doomed.

So if a big Trump supporter gave Hendricks county a half million dollars to run their country election because they voted 60% Trump in the past but Marion county did not have the same resources to conduct their election you think the Indiana supreme court would find that equal protection and equal access to vote?

You may be right, just trying to flesh this out and raise awareness of the issue…

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Mike, it looks to me like you're conflating three different things:

1. "Is It Unconstitutional To Use Private Money To Boost Voter Turnout In Certain Areas?"

No. This is the first amendment. For example, if I knew union members at a certain plant were very pro- or anti- some issue associated with a particular candidate. Should it be illegal for me, a private citizens, to pay for a billboard opposite the plant that said "Vote like your job depends upon it!" ?

Another example, can I ride-share with my elderly/disabled neighbor(s) who couldn't make it to polls otherwise? Does it matter if I happen to know how/who he'd vote for? Can I rent a mini-bus to take to the local assisted living community to shuttle them to the polls? What if I decide to do so only in heavily red areas? Heavily blue areas?

What about certain demographics... like the MTV "get out the vote" campaigns?

2. "Is Private Funding Of Election Offices Legal Or Constitutional?" Is it or should it be illegal for private individuals to give directly to local election boards? I.e. Zuckerbucks!

IMO, yes especially when you're talking amounts that likely raise the suspicion of conflict of interest... or even potential bribes.

3. "Getting out the vote of ANYONE is not the job of election offices."

I disagree... reminding and encouraging citizens to vote, when, where and how, IS the job of election offices. Equally, across the boards, with no political favor... everyone eligible to vote in their voting district.

 

[Ingomike]

1. "Is It Unconstitutional To Use Private Money To Boost Voter Turnout In Certain Areas?"

No. This is the first amendment. For example, if I knew union members at a certain plant were very pro- or anti- some issue associated with a particular candidate. Should it be illegal for me, a private citizens, to pay for a billboard opposite the plant that said "Vote like your job depends upon it!" ?

Another example, can I ride-share with my elderly/disabled neighbor(s) who couldn't make it to polls otherwise? Does it matter if I happen to know how/who he'd vote for? Can I rent a mini-bus to take to the local assisted living community to shuttle them to the polls? What if I decide to do so only in heavily red areas? Heavily blue areas?

This is specifically about private money given with strings to public election offices to conduct elections that benefit certain areas but not all areas. That is NOT private get out the vote efforts. Was not trying to make the question be the length of the entire post…

 

[Ingomike]

3. "Getting out the vote of ANYONE is not the job of election offices."

I disagree... reminding and encouraging citizens to vote, when, where and how, IS the job of election offices. Equally, across the boards, with no political favor... everyone eligible to vote in their voting district.

To me the function of election offices is to conduct a neutral election for the people. It is up to the candidates, parties and other groups to turn out their voters.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

This is specifically about private money given with strings to public election offices to conduct elections that benefit certain areas but not all areas. That is NOT private get out the vote efforts. Was not trying to make the question be the length of the entire post…

On #2, Zuckerbucks, I agree... at the very least it makes people question the impartiality of the election officials.

 

[Ingomike]

51 views and two votes? Interesting response to the topic.

 

[Libertarian01]

I guess my problem is I don't see it as an issue. Let's say I'm rich and I live in Florida. I'm embarrassed about the 2000 election with chads, hanging chads, dented chads, etc etc etc. So to be nice I give $20m to the local election board to buy brand new election machines so we don't have to deal with chad anymore. Does it matter what county I live in? If I'm in Miami it's probably a left leaning county. If I'm rural it's probably a right leaning county. And in either county the opposing political party will paint me as an evil interloper.

I don't think it's a problem for me, as a private citizen, to be able to dictate how I want money I am freely donating spent. If I were to just donate to the state of Florida hoping for the same result I'd might as well buy the swampland they were promising me would be worth a fortune. The state would exact their 99% of the pounds of flesh and what I wanted would go to squat.

I don't see a problem, either ethically or legally with Mark Zuckerburg donating to organizations he likes. I don't see a problem with any member of INGO donating $10m to the NRA knowing they'll give it to politicians they want to see win. The Koch brothers have been known to donate vast sums of money, about $890 MILLION between 2009 - 2016. They've done more since then.

The real problem is that money influences elections. Almost no matter how it's done there will always be ways around whatever rules are put into place. The only nearly complete solution would go against the grain of almost everyone here - that being for the government to become the sole source of all election financing. Every candidate running for office receives X dollars. Any other source would be illegal. Any other advertisement of any kind regarding elections would be illegal. So the .gov would give equal money to both Biden and Trump. That would be their sole limit.

And the solution above is entirely unconstitutional - but that would be the only way to put any degree of limits on the election process by eliminating all external monetary aid.

Regards,

Doug

 

[Shadow01]

At some point people will realize that the best cheater wins. Standing the moral high ground will make you the first loser. We are unwilling to charge and confine big name government fraudsters. We are unwilling to demand fair elections at any cost. We must preserve the status quo for the sake of the children. God forbid they have to live through a complete failure of their government and a complete restructuring. Our hope is that the slow walk to communism is slow enough to allow our kids to have a full life before the collapse, that way we feel like we have done what we could to give them an opportunity and not a future of government turmoil…

 

[Ingomike]

I guess my problem is I don't see it as an issue. Let's say I'm rich and I live in Florida. I'm embarrassed about the 2000 election with chads, hanging chads, dented chads, etc etc etc. So to be nice I give $20m to the local election board to buy brand new election machines so we don't have to deal with chad anymore. Does it matter what county I live in? If I'm in Miami it's probably a left leaning county. If I'm rural it's probably a right leaning county. And in either county the opposing political party will paint me as an evil interloper.

I don't think it's a problem for me, as a private citizen, to be able to dictate how I want money I am freely donating spent. If I were to just donate to the state of Florida hoping for the same result I'd might as well buy the swampland they were promising me would be worth a fortune. The state would exact their 99% of the pounds of flesh and what I wanted would go to squat.

I don't see a problem, either ethically or legally with Mark Zuckerburg donating to organizations he likes. I don't see a problem with any member of INGO donating $10m to the NRA knowing they'll give it to politicians they want to see win. The Koch brothers have been known to donate vast sums of money, about $890 MILLION between 2009 - 2016. They've done more since then.

The real problem is that money influences elections. Almost no matter how it's done there will always be ways around whatever rules are put into place. The only nearly complete solution would go against the grain of almost everyone here - that being for the government to become the sole source of all election financing. Every candidate running for office receives X dollars. Any other source would be illegal. Any other advertisement of any kind regarding elections would be illegal. So the .gov would give equal money to both Biden and Trump. That would be their sole limit.

And the solution above is entirely unconstitutional - but that would be the only way to put any degree of limits on the election process by eliminating all external monetary aid.

Regards,

Doug

Quite an interesting post. On one hand you purport to support freedom to give to elections offices but not first amendment guarantees of speech and assembly to support candidates of your choosing.

Now to the topic, in a races larger than one county, including statewide races, Marion county has $40 per eligible voter to conduct their counties election, meanwhile Hendricks county only has $15 per eligible voter to conduct their election for the same races that is equal protection?

Because of this money discrepancy Marion county has a polling place, conveniently located, for every 400 voters, Hendricks has a polling place for every 1000 voters. Lines are long in Hendricks county because discouraging potential voters, is that equal protection?

So you would be good with so called “zuckerbucks” going to Marion, Lake, and Monroe counties to make it easier to vote there but other areas have to run their elections on the meager amount the state gives? Is that equal protection?

Isnt the reason the elections are run by government is to keep them transparent and equal fir all voters?

“The cash, or “Zuckerbucks,” wasn’t an unconditional donation, however. There were strings attached, which amounted to Democrat get-out-the-vote efforts, mass mail-in voting, and ballot “curing,” whereby election workers “fix” mail-in ballot problems after the ballot has been submitted.”

“These dollars also didn’t flow indiscriminately to needy areas of the country but largely to government election offices in the biggest cities of swing states, where the majority of Democrat voters are concentrated. Those funds were used for Democrat voter outreach, designing and translating ballots, and staffing ballot harvesting, curing, and counting operations.”

How Zuckerberg Took Over 2020 And Why States Must Clean Up Their Act

No conversation about election integrity is complete without understanding how Zuckerberg strategically bankrolled and staffed government election offices.

thefederalist.com

 

[Libertarian01]

Of course I support the 1st amendment and people voicing support for whomever they want, or attacking whomever they don't want.

The $ / voter issue is always be a systemic problem as counties are their own little sovereign fiefdoms - as it should be. Local control is good. However, local control comes with local limitations. Poor counties will never have the goodies rich counties do. Whether it's voting machines or bridge repairs or LE or water inspection.

The same goes with education. I'd love to see the state collect all the property taxes that goes toward education, put it in one big state pot, then divide equally for every single student across the state. Equal access for every Hoosier child. Will NEVER happen! The affluent neighborhoods would freak out. This, even though they will always have access to more funding for their schools.

If Mark Zuckerberg wants to support democratic candidates over republican candidates that's fine with me. Just as it's fine with me that the Koch brothers support republican candidates over democratic candidates. However, each one did it in different ways and focusing on different types of candidates. The reality that rich people are able to donate more is never going to change. This article focuses on more liberal side. It ignores Sheldon & Miriam Adelson out of Las Vegas who donated $218 million to republicans in 2019. It ignores Richard & Elizabeth Uihlein out of Lake Forest IL who gave $68 million to republican candidates in 2019.

Both sides do it. Both sides have sugar daddies who put their fingers on the scale. It can never stop until we completely remove private money from elections. That will never happen under our constitution, for good and ill.

Regards,

Doug

PS - Link: https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/biggest-donors?cycle=2020&view=fc

 

[Shadow01]

The only private money that should be involved in elections should go directly and openly from private individuals to the candidate. No corporate money allowed, no money going to government election groups other than direct tax dollars. No PACs. You want to openly spend your money on a candidate for ads? Fine you write the check and you are the sole source of the ad and responsible for its content and accuracy. Corporations are not citizens therefore not constitutionally entitled to election involvement. If the owners, board members want to step up and use their private funds during an election, go for it, but it must be full disclosure that it’s your private money and not some made up bonus transfer from the corp to your account to pay forward to the campaign. Make the paper trail so imposing to the individual that it’s not worth the effort to use corporate money illegally. Put fines in place that would jeopardize significant percentages of personal financial wealth to ensure compliance. Using a multiplier of the amount of funds donated as a starting point for fines is also a consideration. Start at 10X and work up from there if the desired compliance isn’t being seen.

 

[Ingomike]

If Mark Zuckerberg wants to support democratic candidates over republican candidates that's fine with me. Just as it's fine with me that the Koch brothers support republican candidates over democratic candidates. However, each one did it in different ways and focusing on different types of candidates. The reality that rich people are able to donate more is never going to change. This article focuses on more liberal side. It ignores Sheldon & Miriam Adelson out of Las Vegas who donated $218 million to republicans in 2019. It ignores Richard & Elizabeth Uihlein out of Lake Forest IL who gave $68 million to republican candidates in 2019.

Do you not see a distinction between supporting candidates whether directly or indirectly and the running of the actual election? Meaning the development, procurement and processing of the votes. Would the NFL allow one team in the super bowl to provide private jets and over the top luxury accommodations to the game officials?

My topic here has absolutely nothing to do with supporting candidates or parties and everything to to with election integrity.

So are you saying you are good with private partisan money and strings facilitating public elections?

 

[Ingomike]

Both sides do it. Both sides have sugar daddies who put their fingers on the scale. It can never stop until we completely remove private money from elections. That will never happen under our constitution, for good and ill.

Are you aware this is changing rapidly to one side? Yes, there are a few old timers that give big to republicans but not many young billionaires. The globalist corporations are backing the globalist dems. The America First take over attempt of the republicans has cost the party donors.

It has been interesting to learn the Koch brothers were largely playing a part, they were the evil republican supporters but later we learn they were one of the biggest impediments to securing the border. They supported republicans to keep the cheap labor coming and low taxes. That is why republican leadership kept a lid on border security…

 

[Ingomike]

Update:

Will The IRS Ever Probe Zuckerberg's 2020 Election Tampering?

The IRS is remaining mum on whether it's probing Mark Zuckerberg and several left-wing nonprofits for interfering in the 2020 election.

thefederalist.com

 

[Cynical]

The same IRS that is managed by Joe the corn pop kicker asser that talks with a mouthful of pudding. I’m guessing mum means no in D.C lingo. I know,maybe we can get the DOJ,FBI,CIA,USDA,BATF and the FISA courts involved. I’ll bet somebody goes to jail then......or never. I would like to remain hopeful that there will be justice served but unfortunately it is only mid level military guys and everyday citizens that get punished or put in jail or held indefinitely with no charges filed. He is part of the cabal and has nothing to worry about. I’m pretty certain that the **** that’s being done to a sitting and former president is acceptable and that no harm will come to the founder of two-Facebook.

 

[Shadow01]

Instead of fighting the legality of what the left does, the Right needs to commit to doing it better and to the Nth degree.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Update:

Will The IRS Ever Probe Zuckerberg's 2020 Election Tampering?

The IRS is remaining mum on whether it's probing Mark Zuckerberg and several left-wing nonprofits for interfering in the 2020 election.

thefederalist.com

Ok, so I read the article and it appears to me that argument (of the article) is NOT whether Zuckerbucks was legal or not, but rather whether or not it was appropriate as a NON-PROFIT.

I have a hard time not seeing this as a direct or close parallel to the Obama/Lerner IRS shenanigans on the non-profit status of organizations they opposed.

How is this different than that other than the number of zeroes?

 

[Ingomike]

Ok, so I read the article and it appears to me that argument (of the article) is NOT whether Zuckerbucks was legal or not, but rather whether or not it was appropriate as a NON-PROFIT.

I have a hard time not seeing this as a direct or close parallel to the Obama/Lerner IRS shenanigans on the non-profit status of organizations they opposed.

How is this different than that other than the number of zeroes?

I believe the actions of the elections offices violated both the federal constitution and state constitutions by creating unequal voting opportunities in democratic strongholds. The article makes that pretty clear but the courts, I believe, will not get involved in this because orange man bad. Like so many things from the election until now, they cannot be shown to back up Trumps assertions that the election was stolen.

That the IRS will not do anything is hardly surprising and a continuation of their actions where conservatives get investigated and leftists skate by. The left also creates new entities constantly so they rarely are caught up with.